Otolith Morphometry of Wels Catfish, Silurus glanis L.

Abstract

The relationships between dimensions of the asteriscus and lapillus and fish length for Wels catfish, collected from Sıddıklı Dam Lake between September 2015 and August 2016, are presented. No significant differences were noted between the dimensions of the left and right otoliths, and between otolith dimensions of male and female. For analyses, the right-side data of otoliths were used regardless of sex. The strongest correlation coefficient was obtained from the linear model for all relationships. Thus, a linear model was used for determining relationships. The r2 values of relationships between asteriscus dimensions and total length were more appropriate than relationships between lapillus dimensions and total length. Asteriscus height was more suitable than other otolith dimensions for predicting the length of Wels catfish. Results provided the first information on relationships between total length and otolith dimensions of Wels catfish. These relationships from this study can provide a reliable tool to reconstruct the predator diet, and to estimate the size of the prey, as well as also provide support to paleontologists in their research on fish fossils.

Keywords

• Otolith dimension
• fish length
• otolith biometry
• Wels catfish
• Sıddıklı Dam Lake

Yayın Balığı (Silurus glanis L., 1758)’nın Otolit Morfometrisi

Öz

Bu çalışmada Eylül 2015-Ağustos 2016 tarihleri arasında Sıddıklı Baraj Gölü'nden yakalanan yayın balığı için asteriskus ve lapillus boyutları ile balık boyutları arasındaki ilişkiler sunulmuştur. Sol ve sağ otolitlerin boyutları ile erkek ve dişi bireylerin otolit boyutları arasında anlamlı fark tespit edilmemiştir. Analizler için cinsiyetten bağımsız olarak sağ otolit ölçümleri kullanılmıştır. En güçlü korelasyon katsayısı tüm ilişkiler için doğrusal model kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Bu nedenle ilişkilerin belirlenmesinde doğrusal model kullanılmıştır. Asterikus boyutları ile total boy arasındaki ilişkilerin r2 değerleri, lapillus boyutları ile total boy arasındaki ilişkilere göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Asteriskus yüksekliğinin, yayın balığının uzunluğunu tahmin etmek için diğer otolit ölçümlerinde göre daha uygun olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışma, yayın balığının total boyu ve otolit boyutları arasındaki ilişkiler açısından ilk bilgileri sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen ilişkiler; predator türlerin beslenme rejimini yeniden yapılandırmak ve mide içeriğinden elde edilen yayın balıklarının boyutunu tahmin etmek için güvenilir bir araç olarak kullanılabilir ve aynı zamanda paleontologlara balık fosilleri araştırmalarında destek sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Otolit boyutları
• balık uzunluğu
• otolit biyometrisi
• Yayın balığı
• Sıddıklı Baraj Gölü

Kaynakça

1. Aguilar-Perera A, Quijano-Puerto L. 2016. Relations between fish length to weight, and otolith length and weight, of the lionfish Pterois volitans in the Parque Nacional Arrecife Alacranes, southern Gulf of Mexico. Rev Biol Mar Oceanog. 51(2):469-474. doi: 10.4067/S0718-19572016000200025
2. Aguirre WE. 2003. Allometric growth of the sulcus in Cynoscion spp. (Sciaenidae). J Fish Biol. 63(5):1341-1346. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00238.x
3. Alwany MA, Hassan EM. 2008. Otolith morphology and body size relationships for selected fishes in Suez Canal and Gulf of Suez. Catrina J. 3(3):55-63.
4. Amouei F, Valinassab T, Haitov A. 2013. Age determination and morphological study using otoliths in Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758 in the Southern Caspian Sea. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences 12(4):759-769.
5. Aneesh Kumar KV, Deepa KP, Hashim M, Vasu C, Sudhakar M. 2017. Relationships between fish size and otolith size of four bathydemersal fish species from the south eastern Arabian Sea, India. J Appl Ichthyol. 33(1):102-107. doi: 10.1111/jai.13250
6. Bosnakoff M. 2011. Checklist of the fossil fish otoliths in the Department of Palaeontology and Geology, Hungarian Natural History Museum. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 29:49-68.
7. Bostanci D, Polat N, Kurucu G, Yedier S, Kontaş S, Darçin M. 2015. Using otolith shape and morphometry to identify four Alburnus species (A. chalcoides, A. escherichii, A. mossulensis and A. tarichi) in Turkish inland waters. J Appl Ichthyol. 31(6):1013-1022. doi: 10.1111/jai.12860
8. Bostancı D, Yedier S, Kontaş S, Kurucu G, Polat N. 2017. Regional variation of relationship between total length and otolith sizes in the three Atherina boyeri Risso, 1810 populations, Turkey. EgeJFAS. 34(1):11-16. doi: 10.12714/egejfas.2017.34.1.02

9. Campana SE, Casselman JM. 1993. Stock Discrimination Using Otolith Shape-Analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 50(5):1062-1083. doi: 10.1139/f93-123
10. Campana SE, Thorrold SR. 2001. Otoliths, increments, and elements: keys to a comprehensive understanding of fish populations? Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 58(1):30-38. doi: 10.1139/f00-177
11. Campana SE. 2004. Photographic atlas of fish otoliths of the northwest atlantic ocean. Ottawa: NRC Research Press 284p.
12. Das M. 1994. Age-Determination and Longevity in Fishes. Gerontology. 40(2-4):70-96. doi: 10.1159/000213580
13. DeVries DA, Grimes CB, Prager MH. 2002. Using otolith shape analysis to distinguish eastern Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean stocks of king mackerel. Fish Res. 57(1):51-62. doi: 10.1016/S0165-7836(01)00332-0
14. Echeverria TW. 1987. Relationship of otolith length to total length in rockfishes from northern and central California. Fish Bull. 85:383–387.
15. Fowler AJ. 1990. Validation of annual growth increments in the otoliths of a small, tropical coral reef fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 64:25-38. doi: 10.3354/meps064025
16. Gómez MI, Fuentes CM. 2017. A technique for detection of larval fish in the digestive tract of predators by otolith marking. Mar Freshwater Res. 68(1):167-174. doi: 10.1071/MF15201
17. Granadeiro JP, Silva MA. 2000. The use of otoliths and vertebrae in the identification and size-estimation of fish in predator-prey studies. Cybium 24(4):383-393.
18. Harvey JT, Loughlin TR, Perez MA, Oxman DS. 2000. Relationship between fish size and otolith length for 63 Species of fishes from the Eastern North Pacific Ocean. Washington, DC: NOAA Technical Report NMFS 150.
19. Hunt JJ. 1992. Morphological characteristics of otoliths for selected fish in the Northwest Atlantic. J Northw Atl Fish Sci. 13: 63-75. doi: 10.2960/J.v13.a5
20. Ider D, Ramdane Z, Mahé K, Duffour JL, Bacha M, Amara R. 2017. Use of otolith-shape analysis for stock discrimination of Boops boops along the Algerian coast (southwestern Mediterranean Sea). Afr J Mar Sci. 39(3):251-258. doi: 10.2989/1814232X.2017.1363817
21. Jaramillo AM, Tombari AD, Durá VB, Santamalia MER, Volpedo AV. 2014. Otolith eco-morphological patterns of benthic fishes from the coast of Valencia (Spain). Thalassas: An International Journal of Marine Sciences 30(1):57-66.
22. Javadzadeh N, Mabudi H, Taghi Azhir M. 2016. Investigation of otolith’s characteristics in Rachycentron canadum in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea. Iran J Fish Sci. 15(3):973-979.
23. Jawad LA, Ambuali A, Al-Mamry JM, Al-Busaidi HK. 2011. Relationships between fish length and otolith length, width and weight of the Indian Mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier, 1817) collected from the Sea of Oman. Croat J Fish. 69(2):51-61.
24. Kanjuh T, Mrdak D, Piria M, Tomljanović T, Joksımović A, Talevski T, Milošević D. 2018. Relationships of otolith dimension with body length of European Eel Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758) from Adriatic catchment of Montenegro. Acta Adriat. 59(1):91-96.
25. Kemp J, Swearer SE, Jenkins GP, Robertson S. 2011. Otolith chemistry is more accurate than otolith shape in identifying cod species (genus Pseudophycis) in the diet of Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 68(10):1732-1743. doi: 10.1139/f2011-088
26. Kurucu G, Bostanci D. 2018. Using scanning electron microscopy and length-otolith size relationship for otolith morphological description of Capoeta banarescui Turan et al., 2006 and Squalius cephalus (L., 1758) (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) from Turkey. Acta Zool Bulgar. 70(1):83-88.
27. Monteiro LR, Di Beneditto APM, Guillermo LH, Rivera LA. 2005. Allometric changes and shape differentiation of sagitta otoliths in sciaenid fishes. Fish Res. 74:288-299.
28. Pascoe PL. 1986. Fish otoliths from the stomach of a thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 66(2):315-317. doi: 10.1017/S0025315400042958
29. Payan P, Borelli G, Priouzeau F, De Pontual H, Boeuf G, Mayer-Gostan N. 2002. Otolith growth in trout Oncorhynchus mykiss: supply of Ca2+ and Sr2+ to the saccular endolymph. J Exp Biol. 205(17):2687-2695.
30. Pierce GJ, Thompson PM, Miller A, Diack JSW, Miller D, Boyle PR. 1991. Seasonal-Variation in the Diet of Common Seals (Phoca-Vitulina) in the Moray-Firth Area of Scotland. J Zool. 223(4):641-652. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1991.tb04393.x
31. Polito MJ, Trivelpiece WZ, Karnovsky NJ, Ng E, Patterson WP, Emslie SD. 2011. Integrating stomach content and stable isotope analyses to quantify the diets of pygoscelid penguins. PloS one. 6(10):e26642. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026642
32. Scharf FS, Yetter RM, Summer AP, Juanes F. 1998. Enhancing diet analyses of piscivorous fishes in the Northwest Atlantic through identification and reconstruction of original prey sizes from ingested remains. Fish Bull. 96:575–588.
33. Sweeting RM, Beamish RJ, Neville CM. 2004. Crystalline otoliths in teleosts: Comparisons between hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Strait of Georgia. Rev Fish Biol and Fisher. 14(3):361-369. doi: 10.1007/s11160-005-3793-3
34. Tollit DJ, Steward MJ, Thompson PM, Pierce GJ, Santos MB, Hughes S. 1997. Species and size differences in the digestion of otoliths and beaks: Implications for estimates of pinniped diet composition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 54(1):105-119. doi: 10.1139/f96-264
35. Tuset VM, Lombarte A, Assis AA. 2006. Otolith atlas for the western Mediterranean, north and central eastern Atlantic. Sci Mar. 72: 7–198.
36. Viva C, Sartor P, Bertolini D, De Ranieri S, Ligas A. 2015. Relationship of otolith length to fish total length in six demersal species from the NW Mediterranean Sea. J Appl Ichthyol. 31(5):973-974. doi: 10.1111/jai.12838
37. Volpedo AV, Fuchs DV. 2010. Ecomorphological patterns of the lapilli of Paranoplatense Siluriforms (South America). Fish Res. 102(1-2):160-165. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2009.11.007
38. Yazıcı R. 2018. Biological properties of the Wels Catfish (Silurus glanis l., 1758) from Sıddıklı Küçükboğaz Dam Lake [PhD Thesis]. Kırşehir Ahi Evran University. 154p.
39. Yılmaz S, Emiroğlu Ö, Aksu S, Başkurt S, Polat N. 2019. Relationships between otolith dimensions and body growth of North African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) collected from the upper basin of the Sakarya River, Turkey. Croat J Fish. 77(1):57-62. doi: 10.2478/cjf-2019-0006
40. Yilmaz S, Yazicioğlu O, Saygin (Ayaydin) S, Polat N. 2014. Relationships of otolith dimensions with body length of European Perch, Perca fluviatilis L., 1758 from Lake Ladik, Turkey. Pak J Zool. 46(5):1231-1238.
41. Yilmaz S, Yazicioğlu O, Yazici R, Polat N. 2015. Relationships between fish length and otolith size for five cyprinid species from Lake Ladik, Samsun, Turkey. Turk J Zool. 39(3):438-446. doi: 10.3906/zoo-1403-58
42. Zar JH. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. N.J: Prentice Hall 663 p.